March 13, 1903

CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

sad fate to lose during the recess, and I thank him all the more because his kindly remarks have dispensed me from dwelling further on that subject.

I am glad also to join with my hon. friend in the congratulations and the generous tribute which he has paid to the mover and seconder of the address. My hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) and my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) are still young members, and although their parliamentary careers have been short they have both taken high rank on the floor of this House. We have heard them before ; we knew what they were and we knew what they could do. To-day we have had further cause for admiration, but we had no cause for surprise at what they said and how they said it.

I have, however, to take issue with my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) on the subject, matter of his speech, although as regards its tone and its language I think it was in excellent parliamentary style. On one or two points the hon. gentleman was hypercritical and perhaps even carping. But I must do the hon. gentleman the credit of saying that lie is not half so bad as he makes himself out to be when he is speaking from his place on the opposite side of the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) has been endowed by nature with a fair and judicial mind, and I readily believe that if he always spoke his own judgment from the seat which he now adorns, he would sometimes revise the opinions to which he gives utterance. But the hon. gentleman belongs to a party which a long possession of power has confirmed in the belief that they were born to rule; and. so, regarding power as their own attribute they are ready to believe when they are defeated that they have been robbed of their own. Thus, whenever they have been deprived of power, they are more or less in a bad humour, and like Rachel mourning her lost children they refuse to be comforted.

iMy hon. friend has asked information from me on certain subjects, some of which are referred to in the speech and some of which are not. Be has made an earnest appeal to me to give him a frank statement of the position which we occupy in regard to thei Alaskan boundary. I shall answer that appeal in the spirit in which it was made.

At long last a treaty has been made for the settlement of that vexed question which has for years been pending. It is a question of great importance inasmuch as, if not settled, it could lead to very serious and even perhaps to very dangerous consequences. A treaty has been negotiated by His Majesty's ambassador at Washington and the Secretary of State of the United States for the settlement of that question. As to the treaty itself I am bound to say that in my opinion at all events-with the single

exception of a very slight blemish to which I shall allude presently-the treaty is eminently fair. The treaty provides for a reference of the boundary to a court to be composed of six impartial jurists of repute, that is to say, the commission has been entrusted with the task of dctenhining what is the boundary as created by the treaty of 1825 between Russia and Great Britain. It is not a compromise; it is not an arbitration; there is no giving and no taking; but it is simply to have a judicial interpretation of what is the true boundary ; each party agreeing in advance to accept the boundary has it may be declared, and whatever loss it may give to the other. This is a great victory. I consider, in one way, that we have obtained over the pretentions which have been hitherto advanced by the United States. Up to the present time the United States have refused, steadily refused any kind of reference of that question if the consequences were to entail to them any loss of territory. This is one of the questions which was referred in 1898 to the Joint High Commission. We toad it before us on more than one occasion, and we had discussions of long duration with reference to it, but it always came to this at the end : that the United States would not agree to any terms except on condition that the possessions that they have at /the present time were made theirs beyond doubt. The question has involved some serious consideration from the fact that it is possible, that the boundary, after it has been delimited by the commission, may perhaps show that some territory which now is occupied by one party really belongs to the other. Take for example the tow.i of Skagway, which is now in the possession of the United States. It Is possible that the boundary which is going to be delimited under this commission may Hiow that Skagway does not belong to the United States but to Great Britain. Up to the present time the United States would not agree to any treaty whatever which might place their ownership of Skagway, and -similar territories in jeopardy. They wanted to make it sure, that in anv event, whatever the result might be, their possessions, including Skagway, should remain in the teritory of the United States. The Joint Commission had proposed in 1898, and in 1899 when we sat at Washington, that as it was a case somewhat parallel to the case of Venezueala, the precedent of Venezueala should apply. The rule which had been laid down by the Venezuealan treaty under somewhat similar conditions to this was as follows there were three principles laid down but it is sufficient for the purpose of this discussion to cite only this one :-

la determining the boundary, it territory of one party shall be found by the tribunal to have been at the date of this treaty in the

occupation of a subject or citizen of the other party ; such effect shall be given to such occupation as reason, justice, the principles of International law and the equities of the case, shall in the opinion of the tribunal require.

It seemed to us that was a very fair rule, We proposed it to the American commissioners, but they would not accept it unless it were coupled with this rider :

That all towns and settlements on tide water, settled under the authority of the United States, and under the jurisdiction of the United States at the date of this treaty shall remain under the authority and jurisdiction of the United States. ,

We would not agree to such a condition. This condition has been maintained by the United States from 1899 up to the year 1903; but in the treaty which has been negotiated and signed by Sir Michael Herbert and Mr. John Hay, this rider has been removed; and now the United States go to the arbitration with Canada without any condition of that kind, but agreeing that both parties shall submit to the award which shall be given by those six jurists of repute.

Now, it seems to me that we could not have more than has been given by this treaty. As my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) has said, we do not want any territory which is not ours; neither do we want to part with any territory which is ours. We are willing to take the consequences of this commission. We may lose or we may gain. If we lose, we shall pay the consequences; if we gain, our opponents must pay the consequences. This is the position in which we now go before the court to have this question determined. So far as the treaty itself is concerned, or that part of it at all events, there is no point that has been gained by anybody. It has been said by the press that Canada has made a surrender. I am glad to say, and the House will agree with me, that there is not a particle of surrender in this treaty. It is fair and honourable to both parties, and I am more than pleased that our American neighbours should have come to that conclusion. With regard to the composition of the tribunal, the article of the treaty referring to it provides for a tribunal of six impartial jurists of repute, three to be appointed by the United States and three by Great Britain; and therefore we have a fair tribunal. If impartial jurists are appointed on either side, we shall have as fair a tribunal as it is possible to have.

I have said there is a blemish in the composition of the tribunal. The only blemish I can see in it is that it is not so composed as to ensure finality of decision. If there were seven jurists, or five, instead of six. there would be of a certainty a majority in any event, and the matter would be finally disposed of ; but as the tribunal is constituted, it is possible there may be three on one side and three on the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

other, in which case there will be no decision. But even if we have no decision, we shall have obtained what my hon. friend attaches some importance to-the best education possible for the American people, the British people and the Canadian people, as to the merits of this question. But I may say for my part that I do not apprehend any such result. It seems to me that six impartial men ought to be able to come to a conclusion on a question of this kind.

I agree with my hon. friend on one suggestion he made-that if we are to appoint commissioners on this tribunal, they must not be partisans, but they must be the best men and men of the highest character that the British empire can supply. We had. at one time reason to believe that on the American side as well as on the British side the jurists of repute would be taken from the bench. We would have been glad indeed if the President had seen fit to take the commissioners from the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States.

But now I come to the crucial point of this question, the only one on which at this moment I feel some delicacy about speaking. It has been rumored in the press that the President had selected men who were not judges, and men who, from their previous record, could not be called impartial jurists. I am not aware that Mr. Root, the Secretary for War, has expressed any opinion at all ; but he is a member of the administration of President Roosevelt, and it seems to some of us anomalous that a member of a party who is before the court as a suitor should sit on the bench as a judge in the case. With regard to Mr. Turner, I understand that he has expressed himself somewhat against the Canadian contention. However, I have not seen any word he has spoken except something in the form of a short report in the press. As to Mr. Lodge, he has certainly given utterance to expressions of such a character as to cause some reflection upon the advisability of placing him upon that court. We 'have made representations to Great Britain upon all these matters. The correspondence in which we have been engaged was concluded only yesterday, and it is not yet possible for me to place it on the Table of the House. Perhaps it is preferable that I should not proceed any further on this question, until the whole of the correspondence can be placed on the Table of the House, so that members on both sides shall have an opportunity to judge of the action we have taken. Therefore I shall not say any more at present, but in a few days I will bring to the House the whole of the correspondence. In fact,

I think I shall have authority to lay before parliament the whole of the correspondence which has taken place between the Canadian government and the imperial government from the time the .Joint Higli Commission adjourned in Washington in 1899.

My hon. friend has called upon me also to give information on the subject of trade with Germany. It is quite proper that this desire of my hon. friend should be gratified. He has called our attention to a paragraph which is to he found in the blue-book containing the proceedings of the imperial conference, as follows :

In coneotion with the discussion of the question of preferential trade the conference also considered the point raised by the commonwealth government as to the possibility of the colonies losing most favoured nation treatment in foreign countries in the event of their giving a tariff preference to British goods. As, however, the exports from the colonies to foreign countries are almost exclusively articles of food or raw materials for various industries, the possibility of discrimination against them in foreign markets was not regarded as serious, and as the exports from foreign countries to the colonies are mainly manufactured articles it was recognized that if such discrimination did take place the colonies had an effective remedy in their own hands.

My hon. friend said a moment ago, if you recognized that you had an effective remedy in your own hands for the unfriendly attitude of Germany, why did you not make use of that weapon ? The answer is obvious. My hon. friend has hot forgotten that last year he asked for the production of the correspondence which had been going on for some time between the Canadian government and the German authorities. At that time we were not in a position to bring down the correspondence; it was not complete; but at present it is complete, and we are ready to bring it down, and within a few days we shall lay it on the Table of the House. I may say also that this subject will be taken up again in the budget debate by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend has desired to have the correspondence with the governments of Newfoundland and Great Britain with regard to the new treaty negotiated by Newfoundland with the United States. I shall be glad to bring down any correspondence in the possession of this government, but with regard to the attitude we have taken on the subject, I may say that the question is one that has long engaged our attention and that we have obtained, as the result of our efforts, the assurance that if Newfoundland be allowed by Great Britain to negotiate a treaty with the government of the United States, there shall be no discrimination in it against Canada and that the same treatment given to the American republic shall be given to the Canadian confederation.

My hon. friend also urged that the time is opportune to reopen negotiations with Newfoundland with a view to its entrance into confederation. Let me say that the government of the Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell lost a fine opportunity of settling that question. At all events there were then negotiations far advanced, and I believe that had a little more generous disposition been shown by Canada to Newfoundland, the question would have been settled there and then. But if Sir Mackenzie Bowell could have settled the question and did not do so, I cannot blame him veiy much, because so long as the French shore difficulty is not disposed of it, will always be a serious bar to the entrance of Newfoundland into confederation. I think that Newfoundland ought to be a part of confederation. I am prepared at any time to meet the representatives of Newfoundland in order to facilitate that end. But I would hesitate very much, even if it were in my power to complete the transaction, to do so unless this most irritating question of the French shore were removed from the probability of creating mischief in Canada.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I do not think my right hon. friend quite understands me. My suggestion was that this government should take the initiative in endeavouring to have the difficulty settled for the purpose of bringing Newfoundland into confederation.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

The correspondence will show something of this character, when brought down.

My hon. friend also drew my attention to the question of transportation and asked me the meaning of a paragraph in the speech from the Throne relating to that subject. That paragraph reads as follows : The great influx of population into our North-western territories and the very large additional areas of fertile land which are being brought under cultivation combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of the world, through Canadian channels. The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.

The question asked by my hon. friend is quite legitimate. There are two ideas involved in this paragraph. In the first place, the rapid filling up of the North-west territories makes it absolutely indispensable that measures be promptly taken for opening up ways of communication into the prairie sections and for the extension of those communications to the sea board. Numerous projects have been placed before us, but up to the present the government have taken no position. The matter is one of too great importance, involving too many risks, involving large demands, for the government to lightly jump into new undertakings of any kind, and we thought it desirable to wait the opening of parliament in order to consult our friends and have the benefit of tlie advice of parliament before taking any steps. But we give due warning to the Canadian parliament-and I think it is not out of place-that new efforts have to be made by the Canadian people to meet the

new requirements resulting from the development of our country. What form we should adopt, whether the government should participate or not, whether the government should help or not, or what should be the form of assistance, are questions which present themselves and as to which we have taken no pledge, and as to which we shall have not only to consult our friends but have the advice of parliament at large. That is not all. There is another sentence in that paragraph to which I would call attention :

The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.

What is the meaning of this ? The House knows that we have expended a great deal of money in order to remove the congestion which is every year taking place at the head of Lake Superior, and provide terminal facilities ot the different ports of the country. We have expended at Port Col-borne a great deal and also at Montreal, Quebec and at St. John, N.B. We are asked to spend more money in these and other places. Parliament will be called upon to make new sacrifices. But before we spend any money, whether at Port Arthur, Port Colborne or Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec or St. John, we think it of the highest possible moment that we should have a committee of experts, the most experienced men the country can furnish, in order to obtain from them a full report as to what is required, so that, before another dollar is asked from parliament, parliament should know exactly what amount is required and how it shall be expended. I think that this is an idea which will commend itself to the judgment of members of both sides.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Will we likely have that report this session ?

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

That is more than I can say. The commission will be announced probably on Monday, but whether we shall have a report this session I cannot say.

My hou. friend deyoted a great part of his time to the conference which took place in London last summer. He said that this conference had been barren of results. I do not share that opinion. I do not share the opinion that the conference which sat in London, and at which the representatives of all the self-governing colonies took part, was barren of results. True it was void of such results as were anticipated by those shortsighted men who would cause England to revert to the fatal policy of the eighteenth century, whose aim was to saddle the colonies with burdens which do not belong to them, a policy which carried to extreme limits in that age, brought about the violent separation of the American colonies from the motherland. That conference settled : Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

the principle upon which the British empire alone can rest, the principle that the British empire is composed of a galaxy of free nations all owing the same allegiance to the same sovereign, but all owing paramount allegiance also to their respective peoples.

We were invited to discuss three subjects-the commercial relations, the political relations and the military relations which ought to exist between Great Britain and her colonies. As to the question of commercial relations, I do not propose to say much at this time, because I do not believe it can be discussed so well now as later. When my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) brings down his budget-and I hope to be able to say that that will be at an early day-we shall better be able to take up the question which has been referred to by my hon. friend (Sir. Borden). In the meantime, I can satisfy him on one or two subjects as to which, perhaps, he has not all the information he might have possessed. The hon. gentleman says that the Canadian representatives do not appear to have made any propositions to the conference. Sir, we went to the conference without auy propositions whatever ; we went to receive and entertain suggestions from the others. But, when we came before that conference we had suggestions to offer and propositions to make. The trade resolution passed by the conference was the work of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) introduced a resolution to reduce the postage on newspapers and periodicals between different parts of the empire, and I am glad to say that that proposal has already been acted upon, and my hon. friend has taken steps to give effect to the suggestion he then offered. The Postmaster General also introduced the resolution, which was carried, to have the metric system adopted throughout the British empire. These, of course, were minor points. Upon the main question at issue, I have only this to say in anticipation of the debate which will take place later on-that the conditions in 1902-3 in Great Britain are not the same as were the conditions of 1897. In 1897 Great Britain had nothing as to which she could make-if I may so say it-a reciprocity treaty ; but now the conditions are changed; Great Britain has imposed a duty on cereals and is now in a position to meet our views, and, perhaps have a reciprocity of trade between Canada and Great Britain. That is the reason why we have spoken differently in 1902-3 from the way we spoke in 1897. We are not flies on the wheel-we move with the times, and, the times having changed, we were ready to take advantage of the opportunity and place our views before the British parliament. AVhether they will fructify or not remains to be seen. The new budget has not been presented by the

British Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a few weeks or months, we shall see what will take place, and, having seen that, it will be time enough to take a step.

Then, we were called upon to consider the political relations. As to the political relations which exist between Canada and the colonies generally and the mother land, they are perfectly satisfactory, they could not be improved, and any attempt which has been made with a view of improving them has only led to Utopia. 1 can dismiss this subject without further discussion and go on to say something with regard to the subject which was treated at some length by my hon. friend from Haldimand -the military relations between Canada and Great Britain. There is a school in Great Britain to-day, especially in the official world, whose object for years past has been to bring Canada into the military organizations of Great Britain. The views of that school and their expectations were presented to us by the Right Hon. St. John Brodrick, Secretary of State for War, and by Lord Selborne, First Lord of the Admiralty. But we could not see eye to eye with them, we could not approve their views, and had to propose an absolute demurrer to their contentions. X am aware that there are men, even in Canada, who use the argument that, because Canada is part of the British empire she should take part in the large expenditure necessary to provide the heavy armaments that Great Britain has to maintain because of her dominant position in the world. X can not see the force of that logic. It would imply that Great Britain and Canada were on a footing of equality, whereas we know that they are not on such a footing. Great Britain has powers that we have not. To mention no others, she has the treaty making powers which we have not. And the powers not being co-extensive, the obligations cannot be co-extensive. That argument would imply also that Canada and Great Britain have the same interest in all things. But we know by experience that we have not the same interests. The interests of Canada are divergent from those of Great Britain in many instances. This is seen in the fact that no two of the self-governing parts of the British empire have the same fiscal policy. That argument would imply also that Great Britain and Canada are on the same footing of development. Sir, we know only too well that we have obligations in this country which Great Britain is rid of. As a consequence of our geographical position, the immensity of our territory and the sparsity of our population, we have to assume obligations, to face difficulties and to perform works which in the parent country are left to private enterprise. But though, in all these, the position of the mother country and the colony may be unequal, yet, in the colony there is equal national pride and constitutional jealousy of our rights. This, therefore, makes it absolutely impossible to entertain the proposition made to us. But X confess that we owe it to ourselves as a nation-as we claim to be-to assume our own defence. And, so far as that goes, if we have to spend more money upon military and naval service, I am sure that parliament and the Canadian people will not grudge any sum demanded for that purpose. But, to spend money outside of Canada for military purposes is a proposition that the Canadian people, I believe, are not prepared to accept at this moment. When, in 1899, we took part in the South African war, we did it not under any obligation, not in the execution of any duty which rested upon us-and, to give Great Britain her due, she did not claim it on such grounds either -but we did it simply because we thought it was right and proper to do so. But we refused to be bound for the future, and the position we took then I maintain still.

Now, my hon. friend from Haldimand stated a moment ago that the country was prosperous. He gave us a very splendid picture indeed of the position of Canada on entering the twentieth century. Though vivid, the colours were not too bright in which he painted the extension of our commerce, the development of our agriculture, the increase of our population and the advance of our industries. In all these facts, however, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was judiciously silent. The progress of Canada is an inspiring theme, but it does not appeal to my hon. friend or his followers. If they had to speak of destitution, poverty and ruin, their language would have been jubilant and exultant. But prosperity makes them dumb, whereas adversity would set their tongues wagging with a merry clatter from this time to the end of the session. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition undertook a missionary tour a few weeks ago to a certain part of the province of Ontario. While there he did not speak much on the subject of Canada's prosperity, but he spoke repeatedly on the alleged divisions in the ranks of the Liberal party.

I have no doubt my hon. friend can speak feelingly upon that subject, because he speaks of a party which, during some ten years in the past, exhibited amongst its ieaders the proverbial amity that exists between cats and dogs. My hon. friend made a missionary tour some days ago in the province of Ontario, and among the leaders of the Conservative party he was like the last rose of summer, left blooming alone. I do not quarrel with my hon. friend upon that point, because I am bound to tell him that as between Liberals and Conservatives we do not view in the same way the divergencies of opinion that may exist between men professing the same political allegiance. It is a principle of the powerful political organization calling itself the Conservative

Association that all minds must be cast in the same mould, that all wheels must revolve In the same groove, they must act like a flock of sheep, and wherever one jumps the others must follow. We have not the same standard of excellence, that is not the way we do in the ranks of the Liberal party, associated as we are

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

Matthew Henry Cochrane

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE.

You cau fight like blazes, and It will be all right.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

Oh yes, we can fight like blazes, and then we peaceably settle our little differences. But we do not fight, as the hon. gentlemen opposite used to fight when they were in the council chamber they used to fight with their naked fists, and the walls of the council chamber could testify of some Homeric battle which took place therein when the hon. gentlemen could not settle their differences of opinion in any other way. My hon. friend, in the campaign which he made a few days ago, professed to be in ignorance of tiie policy of the Liberal party. I must say that his ignorance is surprising, occupying the position that he does, having been for seven years now, if I mistake not. a member of this parliament. His ignorance surprises me, for the policy of the Liberal party has been on the statute-book for six years. When it was introduced into this House it was discussed and debated, and was assailed by my hon. friend and his followers. My hon. friend has been assailing the Liberal policy for all these years, and must we come to the conclusion that he dirt not know what he was talking about ?

. It is certainly in the public interest that an hon. gentleman occupying the position that he does should be informed of what was the policy of the Liberal party. Surely my hon. friend knows that on this side of the House there are men who believe that free trade is the soundest and sanest of all economical systems, and there are also men who believe that protection is a preferable principle. If I am told that it is a strange thing that there should be free traders and protectionists in the same party, I would reply that it is the policy of statesmanship to reconcile differences, and out of a diversity of opinions to elaborate a policy which may be satisfactory to the country, remembering that there are no absolute rights in this country, but that all rights are subordinate to the common welfare. But I may also say to my hon. friend, and in saying this I may perhaps claim to be more candid than himself or his friends, that whether we are free traders or protectionists, we are all agreed that in this country and under existing circumstances, it is as inadvisable as it is impossible to have either an absolute system of free trade or an absolute system of protection. Our system was embodied in the year 1897 in a tariff which will live in history as the Fielding tariff. It is well suited to the country, as is evidenced by Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

past experience, and by the unbounded prosperity which the country has enjoyed under it. My hon. friend says that he has a recruit for his views in the person of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine). He says the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is a protectionist, but if he had quoted the whole speech of my hon. friend he would have quoted that part of his speech wherein he says that in the present tariff there is enough of protection to satisfy him, and to satisfy anybody who looks only to the interest of the country and not to the interest of his party.

But my hon. friend says that we are divided on this question. What would my hon. friend say if I were to show him a man, not a party but a man, who is divided against himself on this question ? Will he say it is impossible for a single man to be divided on that question ? We can conceive it possible that a party might be divided against itself but surely it is a stranger thing to find a man divided against himself. Well, I have read the speeches of my hon. friend. I had that pleasure for some weeks after I came back from Europe, and I found that my hon. friend is divided against himself on that very question. He has not the same opinion in all parts of the country. I must, however, pay him this compliment, that in order to suit the views of an audience in one part of the country and then suit the views of another audience in another part of the country, he has performed some feats of acrobatic agility of which I did not suspect him capable. Let me quote the words of my hon. friend on this question. Last year my hon. friend gave us his views of what he thought ought to be the fiscal policy of Canada. He is a new leader, and of course he is trying to please all his friends, and he succeeds very well in doing so. I give him credit for that. He wished to lay down a policy upon which he could go before the country and the people, and so he moved this resolution :

This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians.

" Adequate protection." In the olden times it used to be called the National Policy. But it is the same old friend with a new name. " Adequate protection." Well, whether you call it adequate protection or the National Policy, it is still a debatable question as to what adequate protection means. I may say to my right hon. friend that he did not leave us in doubt as to what he meant by adequate protection, for in the course of his speech in support of this resolution, he said this :

We find that our rate of duty on total imports from the United States is about 121 per cent, and on dutiable goods from the United

States 24'83- per cent, while on the other hand, the rate of duty on the total imports of the United States is 28'91 per cent, and on dutiable goods it is 49'83 per cent, or, more than double our rate in each case. As has been already pointed out, the United States has nearly three-fourths of the total importation of free goods into Canada, while Great Britain has to be content with some 15 per cent. One would expect that if we intend to maintain and build up our own products and manufactures against such powerful and tremendous competition as that which we must anticipate from the United States we would fix our tariff of customs .against that country on a scale at least as high as is that of their tariff against us.

That is to say, we must have the American tariff. This is adequate protection. Forty-nine per cent is the American tariff, so that in order to be consistent and to build up our industries, we must have a tariff of 49 per cent against the United States. This is the policy of my hon. friend such as it was set forth on the floor of the House, and here in the east. But, during the recess my hon. friend went to visit the North-west. If I may be permitted to say so, I congratulate him for having done so. I have no doubt that the people were pleased to have an opportunity of seeing and hearing the new leader of the party and it was right that, he should come into contact with them and right that he should visit these new communities. But, if his friends have reason to he happy over his visit his opponents have also reason to be gratified that he took that course, because, there is no experience like the experience of having to speak before different communities in different parts of the country to shbw the character of a policy, whatever there may be in it of good or bad. As my hon. friend proceeded westward, as he commenced to sniff the breezes of the prairie, as he inhaled the fragrance of the new ploughed soil, as he gazed upon the immensity of flie new wheat fields, as he came in contact with the hardy settler, who has hewed civilization out of the desert, his ideas expanded with the views of the horizon before him, and when he came to Medicine Hat the medicine had already had its effect upon him, and I am happy to say-and I give him my compliments for it-new ideas had already sprouted under his hat. To the people of Medicine Hat he spoke, to the hardy settlers he came to preach the new gospel of the Conservative party, and here is the language he held. You have heard the language he held here on the floor of parliament, advocating a Canadian tariff of 49 per cent against the consumers of Canada. But, that is not the language he held to the people of the North-west Territories.

His policy was one of reasonable protection to all Canadian industries, and he was prepared to say this before any Canadian audience. Competition amongst Canadian industries had resulted in a marvellous reduction of prices, and he did not think the people of Canada would suffer by a moderate protective tariff. The. Conservative party was in no way bound up with the interests of the manufacturers and he could tell the people in all sincerity that the Liberal party had received during the past six years, and was receiving support from the manufacturers. He was well applauded on taking his seat.

I believe so, but I do not know that he would have been so well applauded when he took his seat if he had advocated the American tariff of 49 per cent. We can make a comparison between the language he held here and the language spoken to the people of the North-west Territories. What a difference there is between the selfsufficient policy of 49 per cent in the east and the meek, moderate, humble, apologizing, protective policy given to the people of the North-west Territories ! It is true the hon. gentleman is still in favour of a moderate tariff to keep the foreigner out so that the manufacturers may be cooped up in a small pit so that they can not viciously cut into each other's prices and the consumer may have the benefit of a lower tariff. Is this the boasted sincerity of the Conservative party when they speak of the policy of protection ? It is one thing in the east, it is one thing in the west, and there, Sir, is the condemnation of the policy of the hon. gentleman and the vindication of the policy we have on this side of the House.

Now, Sir, my hon. friend never said a word on an important subject that is mentioned in the speech from the Throne; that is to say, the new Redistribution Bill which must be introduced during the present session. We have to introduce that Bill and we will do it, not of choice, but of necessity. The necessity is imposed upon us by the letter of the constitution. We know from the experience of the past, we know from the history of former Redistribution Bills, that there are several ways of introducing such a measure, but if there be several ways of introducing it there is only one way which ought to be accepted by the Canadian parliament; that is to say, the honest, fair way, so as to give no favour to anybody and to injure nobody. I have here a statement which has been placed in my hands of 42 counties in Ontario which at the last election returned 25 Conservative members and 17 Liberal members, whereas, in these 42 counties the popular vote gave an actual majority as recorded to the Liberal candidates. In these 42 counties 88,365 votes were cast for Liberal candidates and 86,392 were cast for Conservative candidates, showing a Liberal majority of 1,973 votes-result 25 Conservative members elected, 17 Liberal members elected; and majority of votes in favour of Liberal party; majority of seats in favour of Conservative party. That is the fairness of the redistribution that we have had before us for twenty years. The objects

of the government in introducing legislation shall be, first, to wipe out the injustices and abuses from which the Liberals in Ontario have suffered for twenty-one years, and next to devise a measure in such terms as to give no favour either to the party in power or to the party in the minority, but to devise a measure, which, whatever may be the question brought before the Canadian parliament at any time, shall make it certain that the views of the people shall upon every occasion prevail and the majority shall rule.

At six o'clock, the House took recess.

After Kecess.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).

Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer as briefly as possible to the address which is about to be adopted by this House in replv to the speech from the Throne. Let me say at once, that I feel convinced that I am but the faithful echo of all my friends sitting on this side of the House when I say that the tone of the right hon, Prime Minister's speech has brought to us gladdening news. I find in it the tone of a man who is returning to health and I am sure that that knowledge which was conveyed to us, and which will be conveyed to the country at large to-morrow will be received with great pleasure by all true Canadians. I am not a medical man, but I have heard it said that the first sign of returning health is a disposition on the part of the invalid to resort to facetiousness and in some of the remarks which fell from the lips of the right hon. gentleman I was pleased to find that indication of a sure convalescence.

We all listened with unfeigned satisfaction to the admirable addresses of the mover and seconder of this resolution. My hon. friend the gallant member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Thompson) rose to a high pitch of eloquence, and at times I had merely to close my eyes to see as it were before me a vision such as is depicted in some of Turner's landscapes-lands with clear skies, enchanting scenery, everything flowing with milk and honey. That feeling which X experienced with pleasure was in no sense diminished when I heard the member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) in the beautiful language of France, describe to us with even greater intensity the prosperity which reigns throughout the country, and the reasons we ought have to be perfectly satisfied and to seek no further improvement in the condition of this country. I remember long ago studying when at school the beautiful work of the Bishop of Cambrai, the Journey of Telemachus to the Isles of Calypso and when I heard my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville, my mind was recalled to the admirable description of the Paradisean lands in which Telemachus travelled : gods Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

and goddesses, and everything that goes to make life fair and pleasant. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) to my right rudely awoke me from this dream by giving us some considerations which I have no doubt will impress themselves upon the minds of a great many thinking people, and a great many business people throughout this country. Of course that only lasted during the address of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) and I was again plunged into a trance by the satisfied speech of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government. He told us : We have made an admirable treaty

in regard to Alaska, we have had a colonial conference replete with excellent results; the policy followed by this government in respect to that legislation which we claim is necessary to make our country what it ought to be, is a perfect policy; absolute harmony reigns not only within the cabinet but amongst all the members of the Liberal party and the government has nothing to do now but to set itself to work to repair the gross injustices which have been done by past administration^. Sir, 1 won,Id like to join my right 'lion, friend in that song of happiness and perfect peace, but I think Sir, you yourself, as well as every man in this House is persuaded of that great truth which says : That we must follow the laws of progress; that we have here in Canada a great country with changing conditions; a young country the enormous resources of which have only within the past twenty years become apparent; that we have powerful competitors quite near us; powerful competitors in the old continent of Europe, in every line, industrial, agricultural, artistic. This century has begun an era of progress which is going to lead us to great changes and if we wish to keep pace with the rest of the world we cannot afford to remain satisfied ; we must set our shoulders to the wheel, we must realize our position as a small people in this great country, and we must still unsatisfied move forward, making important changes, and endeavouring by a policy which may be called a national policy, or a policy of adequate protection, or whatever you may choose to call it-we must endeavour to build up this country, to make of it a great commonwealth, and to realize the destiny which it seems to me is clearly pointed out to us by Providence when that great power gave us this immense inheritance. Mr. Speaker, taking the utterances of the two hon. gentlemen who moved the address ; can we say that there is throughout the length and breadth of the land entire satisfaction with the policy of the government ? Can we say that there is that feeling of satisfaction which does not betray throughout this country-not what the right hon. gentleman stated a few moments before he left the chair : That there are free traders and protectionists on the government

benches-but that there is throughout the entire country amongst thinking men engaged in business, (not only in manufacturing business but in agricultural pursuits as well) a great desire at the present moment to know what is in reality the preponderant element of that party which as the right hon. gentleman says himself is divided upon a question of vital moment in this country-and, whether we shall have in reality" a policy of Canada for the Canadians, or whether this government is going to pursue a course which the right hon. gentleman sums up when he said : That

the part of government consists in reconciling and in balancing these divided opinions which he himself admits exists in the ranks of his own party.

On this side cf the House there is no difficulty of that kind. I will advert in a moment to this statement of policy, which is consistent throughout-frank and outspoken, and which won the praises, not only of the followers of my hon. friend at my right, the leader of the opposition, but the praises in many instances of numbers of the right hon. gentleman's own followers. The right hon. gentleman states that there are divergent views within his own party in respect to that most important principle of protection. He did not require to make that statement for us to know that that divergence exists, and it has produced within the ranks of my right hon. friend's own party divisions far deeper and far greater than any which my right hon. friend is able to point out on this side of the House. It is not with equal justice that my right hon. friend treats those who are in favour of a strong national policy, and those who on the contrary believe, as some hon, gentlemen who sit on the opposition benches believe, that the present tendency ought to be in favour of a lower tariff, and of admitting, as we claim the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite admits, the great competitors of our own country to a privileged position in our own markets. Mr. Speaker, we have had by-elections, and, speaking for myself, our party has not been as successful in my own province as I would have liked ; but we have had the spectacle in the province of Quebec, which I have no doubt has been repeated elsewhere, which the right hon. gentleman claimed with pride as one of the great qualities of the party which he leads. In the electoral district of Argenteuil we had the members of the present cabinet and all their supporters speaking strongly in favour of a reduced tariff. I have not here with me, but lam prepared to lay on the Table of this House the campaign speech of my friend Mr. Weir who led the ministerial forces in the electoral district of Argenteuil ; and what did he say in that pamphlet which was spread broadcast throughout the constituency ? He stated that the party led by my right hon. friend was a party who remained faithful even to-day to the policy

enunciated by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), and he quoted the minister's own words, which consisted in a repudiation of every element of protection, and in a condemnation of that policy as being a policy of robbery and scoundrelism. During the very time that campaign was being waged, we had the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine), in the division of Maisonneuve, a great industrial division of the city of Montreal, posing before the electorate as a man who would not adhere to any other policy than the policy of protection, and who was prepared at any moment, upon sufficient cause being shown him, to raise the tariff, and who went around begging the names of the manufacturers of the city of Montreal, imploring them to sign his requisition paper, in order, as he said, to show to the manufacturing people and to the workingmen of that important district, that the government were pledged to the protection of their interests, and going so far, as I am informed, as to write letters, pledging the government in certain cases to an increase in the tariff, in order to secure the support of those important elements of our population. Shortly afterwards, if not at the same time, down in the electoral district of Yarmouth, we had tlie Minister of Finance upholding the policy of a lower tariff, of a tariff for revenue only ; and at a great banquet given to celebrate the victory of the free-trade candidate, my hon. friend the member for Guysboro' (Mr. Fraser) reproved the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and condemned the system pursued in the province of Quebec of pandering to the taste of those who wanted to build up once more the na-' tional policy, and stated that the result obtained in Yarmouth ought to encourage the party to which he belonged to fly frankly and boldly the colours of a lower tariff and even of a revenue tariff. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that we who sit on this side of the House should point out the inconsistencies of hon. gentlemen opposite, as it is our duty to do ; and we shall endeavour to perform that duty in such a way as to give satisfaction. And I will say to the right hon. gentleman that if the improvement in the condition of his health depends on us, we will favour it in every way possible, and we will trust that the example which I hope we shall set patriotically, will be followed by his own friends, and that they will contribute, as we desire to do, to the complete restoration of his health.

But, Sir, it was said by the right hon. gentleman that divisions have existed in past cabinets. It may be so ; but I took note of what the right hon. gentleman further said, that those divisions manifested themselves in the council chamber, where, as Lord Melbourne aptly said on a celebrated occasion, they should manifest themselves. But what of the divisions purport-

ing to exist upon that great question in respect of which there is a feeling of unrest throughout the country which it is the duty of the right hon. gentleman to set at rest ? The divisions which existed, if they did exist, in the council chamber, have been intensified in the case of our hon. friends opposite, and we had the spectacle in our own province of these gentlemen not settling their differences in the council chamber, but going down when the right hon. gentleman was returning a sick man from Europe, and fighting out their differences, like the pilots of Oapt. Marryatt, on the deck of a steamer. We had the spectacle of five ministers going down to meet the premier of this country and insisting that one of their own colleagues should withdraw from the cabinet because he belonged to that phalanx of kis party which holds to the view that at present the great duty imposes itself upon all Canadians of determining whether this country is going to get the full benefit of its resources, or whether these resources are to continue being used to enrich our neighbours to the south, and we are to continue being made the slaughter market for the great manufacturers of Europe.

At present, under the preferential clause, we are sacrificed to the great manufacturers of Great Britain. I repeat to-day what I said on a former occasion, when challenged by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to express an opinion on this preferential clause, that if we gave a preference to Great Britain, we should in return have some corresponding advantage in the British market. That opinion, I believe, is held by many others, and that is the policy which my hon. friend the member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) and myself advocated in this House long ago. Ready and willing as we were to give Great Britain a preference, we were not prepared to grant such a preference as would imperil in any way our own great industrial interests. Take that great industry which is of particular interest to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. In the province of Quebec, owing to the antipatriotic conditions obtained from the local government, our immense wealth of pulp wood, sufficient, according to the calculation of reliable experts, to last over 800 years, is being taken over to the United States. We derive from that great natural resource the smallest amount possible of wealth to ourselves. We get for our pulp wood about $3.50 per cord and in the neighbouring republic, where it is manufactured, the American manufacturers add to that cord of wood the value of $45. And in many instances that pulp comes back to us in the shape of paper. We are entitled to know from the government whether it is prepared to come down with any new policy which would enable our workingmen to get the share they are entitled to out of the profits to be derived from the manufacture of pulp within our own border. When we know that Mr. MONK.

we have immense deposits of iron in this country and that steel billets are being taken over to the United States where they pay a duty of $6 a ton, which is returned afterwards in the shape of a drawback, and that this steel is manufactured in the United States into rods and galvanized wire and afterwards sent back to this country for sale, is it not our duty to insist on the government adopting a policy which will enable the work of manufacture to be done in our own country and change the balance of trade which is at present $70,000,000 against us, with our American neighbour. In the recent campaign in the province of Ontario, when I had occasion to visit the northern part of that province, I was confronted with the fact that mattes of nickel, which cost Americans perhaps $125 a ton, are taken over in immense quantities to the United States, to the refineries of New Jersey, and there given a value of over $2,500 a ton. And it is a fair question for us to ask this government to alter that system and give us in Canada the full benefit of the manufacture and by-products of that great natural wealth, which we share with only one other country in the world.

Throughout the constituencies which 1 visited during the last by-election, it was stated that we who sit on this side of the House wished merely to favour the manufacturer to the detriment of the agriculturist. But I venture to say that, after my hon. friends who sit on the treasury benches have heard the complaint of the farmers and market gardeners of Ontario and also the similar complaints of the associations of farmers and market gardeners of the province of Qnebec who are coming up next Tuesday to claim the revision of the tariff in respect to their industry, we shall not hear formulated in this House the charges that were made during the last campaign. Then, allow me, in that connection, to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, what have been the results, as regards the agriculturists, of the policy pursued by this government during the last few years. In 1896, we had importations of butter, cheese, bacon and hams, beef salted, pork barrelled, meats dried, and other provisions the products of the fields of the American union, to the amount of $1,288,041. During last year, these importations have amounted to over $2,500,000 from the neighbouring republic. Let me give you in detail one or two of the items to which I have just adverted. In bacon and hams in 1896, we imported from the United States $143,000 worth, last year the importations of these articles, which, I claim, we ought to reserve the full benefit of for ourselves, amounted to over $650,000 worth, in barrelled pork, in 1896, we imported $270,000 worth, and, in 1902, we imported over $580,000 worth. What we claim and what has been claimed in the uniform manner by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, is that the time has come

for us not, as my right hon. friend has said, to adopt a policy of 49 per cent protection, and not as he said to preach one doctrine in one part of the country and another doctrine in the far west-we would be acting like hon. gentlemen opposite if we did that -but to preach the doctrine throughout the country, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition did in his memorable tour, of building up our own country, and, if we find a great and powerful community like the United States reaching the acme of prosperity, reaching the height of wealth which they have reached under a high tariff, not to sacrifice our own country to them, but to keep our own resources for ourselves and for our people and to take the means that may be necessary to achieve that end. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition lias never advocated any other doctrine but that either in this House nor anywhere else ; and I am surprised at my right hon. friend speaking as he does. But perhaps he may be excused, because of absence from the country at the time of the memorable tour was made as far as British Columbia by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, for not knowing what everybody else knows and recognizes-that, whatever may be the reproaches cast upon my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) there was one unstinted praise accorded to him by everybody, and that praise was for his sincerity and for the sameness of his professions in every part of the country.

What did the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) say in this House ?

Now, I do not say that our policy should be framed on any principle of retaliation of tariffs

How is that for my right hon. friend who claimed that the member from Halifax laid down a distinct doctrine of a 49 per cent tariff or any other fixed percentage of duty ?

I absolutely and decidedly dissent from that. I do say that our tariff should he framed from the standpoint of the Canadian people and with a view to the preservation of the Canadian market for the Canadian people themselves.

That is the doctrine laid down by my hon. friend and followed uniformly by every one of us on this side of the House. Does my right hon. friend or any of his colleagues pretend that in his tour throughout the country the hon. member for Halifax, the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition at any time laid down a different principle ? Let them, at least, if that is their contention, quote some word from my hon. friend in any of his addresses to the people of this country showing that he proceeded on any different principle from that, or laid down in the passage of his speech that I have just quoted. And, at Victoria, what do we find my hon. friend from Halifax declaring, speaking there as the mouthpiece of those who sit on this side of the House ? He said :

It is a matter of adequate protection

That is not what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) takes pleasure in sneering at as he sneered here at Sir Charles Tupper's contention that we should have a preferential tariff arrangement with the mother country-but saw fit to entirely reverse his position with great humility and with ashes on his head when he went to the interimperial conference. The hon. member for Halifax, speaking at Victoria, went on :

That is a policy which is held to he the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party. That is the pronounced and declared policy of the people of this country-adequate protection of Canadian industries, a protection which will ensure to Canadians of this country their own markets at all prices and under all circumstances.

That is real patriotism, and we never contended for any other policy so far as I am aware. I defy my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance to quote a single instance of a speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in which he propounded any different idea. The leader of the opposition came west and I had the pleasure of meeting him and those who accompanied him in the city of Winnipeg. We found out there that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) was not the great Bonaparte of the west that we had been taught to believe him. But what I wish to call your attention and the attention of this House to, in view of the declaration, accompanied with a certain amount of ridicule, made by my right hon. friend the leader of the government, is the language used by the hon. member for Halifax in his reported speech at the banquet which was tendered to him in the city of Winnipeg :

The policy of the Conservative party was a policy of adequate protection, Canadian pro-tectipn ; and would it not be an estimable benefit if the lead mines, the gold mines, the iron mines, and other industries were developed ? His party held no brief from any corporation, he believed that it received less support from the manufacturers than had the Liberal party during the last four years.

I am able fully to confirm that view expressed by my hon. friend.

He supported protection because he believed it to he in the interests of the whole people of Canada. He wished to have the support of the North-west, but he absolutely refused to ask for that support by advocating a different doctrine to that which he advocated in other parts of Canada, notwithstanding the taunts which had been thrown out by his political opponents.

These remarks, Sir, made by my hon. friend in Winnipeg, in that province which, I am happy to say, is as anxious as we are in the east to build up a great and powerful commonwealth, these remarks he repeated at Lethbridge and everywhere else in the province of Manitoba. My hon. friend the

leader of tlie opposition said also in that province :

So far as' our policy is concerned, we are not afraid to avow it in the east or in the west. It is the same everywhere. Our policy is that of adequate protection to all legitimate industries in Canada.

My hon. friend is more than right when he says that he has strong support for that view, which I venture to say will ultimately become the view of all those who desire the advancement of our country. He has strong support for It on the treasury benches where, as stated by my right hon. friend, people are free to entertain any opinion they like, and his mission is to bring them all together, and out of that chaos to evolve something which is satisfactory to the country. My hon. friend the present member from Maisonneuve, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Pre-fontaine), whom I am glad to see in his place this evening, stated there that if any man had anything to complain of in respect to the tariff-and his speech was reported verbatim in one of his own organs- or if any legitimate industry could establish a claim for greater protection, he was prepared for his own part to confer with his colleagues in the cabinet and give them all the protection they wanted. The speech from the Throne does not refer to tariff matters specially. Sir, I claim in contradiction to what was said by my hon. friends who moved and seconded the address, that there is a feeling at present throughout the country, of which we would have been glad and the country at large would have been glad, to find mention in that ministerial programme of the session. We would have been glad to see that legislation was foreshadowed to carry out the idea that we must prepare to protect ourselves by law against the invasion of our markets by men more powerful than ourselves, and against the waste of the great natural resouuces given to us by Providence, and which it is our mission to make the most of as a young people.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot for my own part entirely agree with what my hon. friends have said in regard to immigration. I believe it is in the interest of this country that it should be settled, I believe that we should favour the advent to our country of men who are anxious to form part of our great commonwealth and to do their duty as citizens. But I do not believe in the present policy of the government in regard to immigration; and I would have been glad to hear in the speech from the Throne some announcement of a change in that policy which has been followed for too many years. We spend too much money in bringing people to this country without discrimination as to their character, as to whether they are fit to become inhabitants. For instance, I do not believe that it has been a prudent or proper step on the part-Mr. MONK.

of this government to spend so large a sum of money, over a hundred thousand dollars, to bring here a set of people like the Douk-hobors, who, while we were travelling in the North-west, were leaving their settlements and picking up rocks, and stones, and stumps of trees, in order to find the Messiah on the plains of the North-west. I believe that most of the money we spend at the present moment on immigration agencies, and there is far too much spent, would be better employed in keeping our own people at home, in preventing' the exodus, and in offering facilities to our own people to settle in those boundless and wealthy plains of the west.

Sir, I listened attentively to the right hon. leader of this House when he spoke in regard to the colonial conference. It seems quite apparent from what we find in the English blue-book, and from what we know of the results of that conference, that it has achieved very little of a practical nature. It is no doubt a great advantage for the people of this vast empire, living under the same flag, to confer together, for representatives of the great colonies such as Canada and Australia to meet in conference. But I think that we on this side of the House have a right to expect something more definite as a result of that conference to our own country. Thus, the steps taken by the hon. Minister of Finance and those who accompanied him on that distant mission in so far as the very important question of a preference is concerned, resulted in absolutely nothing. There was no result. I find on page 10 of the English blue-book that:

The representatives of the colonies are prepared to recommend to their respective parliaments preferential treatment of British goods on the following lines :-Canada-

That is ourselves.

The existing preference of 33$ per cent and an additional preference on lists of selected articles

That is what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was prepared, as I understand it, to advocate as Canada's share-the maintenance of the present preference and an additional preference on certain selected articles.

(a) By further reducing the duties in favour of the United Kingdom ;

(b) By raising the duties against foreign imports ;

(c) By imposing duties on certain foreign imports now on the free list.

The real, practical, tangible result is nothing. We have no intimation from the government of any intention of carrying out that pledge mentioned on page 10 of the blue-book nor as to how they intend to implement that promise. There was no question of the embargo upon our cattle, a most unjust measure. Did they attempt, or achieve, anything as regards the removal of

that most unfair and most unjust impediment to our trade ? Nothing. No result. It seems to me that our friends might have availed themselves of the opportunity of that conference to urge upon the government of Great Britain some scheme, some plan, by which a great dependency, such as our own, might have had additional facilities, additional means of approaching to the sovereign power when it is a question of concluding commercial treaties in which this country is interested. Nothing in that regard. As regards the Alaskan boundary treaty with which my right lion, friend is so perfectly satisfied, I listened vainly to hear my right lion, friend make a distinct statement as to whether his government recommended that form of settlement of the difficulty or whether they did not do so. Do they recommend it ?' Have they taken any steps to secure upon that tribunal, or commission, or arbitration board, or whatever it may be called, the presence of two jurists at least from our own country, and what steps have they taken to secure that end, if any ; For my own part, Sir, what I respectfully submit to this House in regard to that most important matter is this: It may be that the tract of land as to which the dispute exists is net of very great value, but as far as I have been able to understand the very able arguments uttered and printed in favour of the Canadian contention, we are greatly interested in securing some of those bays which extend into the disputed territory as an outlet to the sea from that great Yukon territory which is known to be so valuable. Now, Sir, do my hon. friends think that, with such a commission as has been named and with, as is intimated to us, the presence upon that commission of two men who may be very estimable American citizens, but who are no doubt one-sided upon this question, they have taken every measure or precaution to protect our interests? The right lion, leader of the government laid great stress upon the fact that in respect to the proposal that when they submitted the Venezuelan difficulty there was a stipulation that the position occupied by those whose interests were adverse to our own would not be sacrificed in any event, and that by his efforts they had secured in the present treaty the obliteration of that obnoxious clause, but, how are we to couple that great claim made by the right hon. gentleman with the statement he made when he touched upon this subject that this commission was a commission of legal men named in order to determine where the limits were ? I ask this House whether if that, being the nature of a commission, it would have been very dignified for us to allow a stipulation to be made in the treaty that whatever might be the finding of the investigating commission, Skagway and such other ports as are at present in the hands of our American neighbours should under all circumstances remain therein. It 3

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink

REVISED


seems to me that the claim that they have secured a great advantage for us is not one which this House will readily accept, but, what I am anxious to see, Mr. Speaker, is some proof of the steps taken by this government at the time of the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and also when this present treaty was under negotiation, to secure full protection to our rights. I moved, if my memory serves me right, last year, for the production of the correspondence that had taken place between this government and the imperial government in regard to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and I think I am right in saying that the motion was denied me. When the correspondence relating to that treaty, in which, perhaps, as my lion, friend at my right (Mr. Borden, Halifax) says, we have no practical interest, but, which may have been used as a powerful lever to help a useful solution of the Alaskan boundary difficulty, when the correspondence which will be brought down, as has been promised to my hon. friend, and when further correspondence in relation to this treaty is before us, we will be in a better position to see exactly what steps have been taken to secure our rights in that most important matter. Mr. Speaker, I confess to some astonishment at the announcement made by the right hon. leader of the government that nothing has yet been determined by the government and that there is nothing which the government can lay before this House in regard to the additional facilities for transportation across the continent which are referred to in a dim and indefinite way in the speech from the Throne. I think I am not mistaken in stating that it is over three months ago that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) intimated to the public that some scheme was under consideration, and it was viewed favourably by himself, to give us a new route across the continent. Since that time we have had discussions galore throughout the press in this country. We have seen the head men of the two great railways existing in this country discussing publicly under what conditions these additional facilities are to be given to the country, and I think it is a fair matter of regret for us to see when we are summoned together that the government of this country, at this present moment, with a prospect of a long session before us has determined nothing definite whatever in regard to these additional facilities and cannot say when the commission, which is referred to in the speech from the Throne, will make its report, or whether the government will wait for the report or not, before it lays a definite scheme before parliament. My right hon. friend closed his remarks by referring to the necessity of remedying an injustice in respect to the distribution of seats which took place years ago. As a proof of that injustice, he spoke of some


EDITION


of the results of the last federal elections In the province of Ontario ; but my right hon. friend glided with a light step over the far more extraordinary phenomenon presented In the province of Ontario by which a government is returned to power in that province, which as a matter of fact has a minority of over 7,000 of the popular vote. That would appear to be a far greater injustice than anything that has ever happened in the federal arena. Nor did my right hon. friend see fit to refer in any way whatever to the far more deplorable spectacle of recent date, whereby the government of Ontario, in order to maintain its life and existence, has had recourse to methods which are not always discovered, but which we have seen practiced by the Liberal party, not only in the province of Ontario but in the province of Quebec and elsewhere. We have seen them, Sir, in the province of Ontario and elsewhere, maintaining themselves in power by a system of corruption which prevents, odiously prevents the free will of the people from being given expression to in this young country.


LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. JOHN CHAKLTON (North Norfolk).

I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of engaging in a discussion of the tariff in connection with this debate on the address, be lieving as I do that such a discusison at this moment is premature. I have consequently no criticism to make upon the points made by my hon. friend from .Jacques Cartier. In many respects, of course, I sympathize with the views that gentleman entertains, but circumstances may arise and are likely to arise in the near future which will convince us that discussion of the tariff, or action upon the tariff is not advisable at the present time. We may find that we have not a proper knowledge of the premises that will exist, and that consequently we are not in a position to take the action which we will be required to take when we know exactly what the conditions are. Should we have a meeting of the Joint High Commission, it is evident to any member who will examine the facts that the result of a meeting of that commission will determine to a great extent the character of the fiscal legislation of this parliament. In case a favourable treaty was obtained with the United States, so far as I am concerned, my views would be quite different with regard to this matter, from what my views would be should the United States persist in continuing the policy that has been in force in that country for the last 35 years. In the latter case I would co-operate earnestly and heartily with my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, and with those who believe as he does in regard to this matter. On the contrary, if the policy of the United States were to be reversed ; if their policy towards this country were to assume a liberal character ; if we were to enter upon fiscal relations with that country satisfac-

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

tory to ourselves ; then, of course, the policy that I would favour would be quite different from the policy I would favour in the other case. I think it is not profitable or necessary to enter upon or to continue the tariff discussion upon the debate on this address. I do not think that the House is in possession of the information which would put it in a position to deal with this matter, to take action upon the fiscal policy of Canada as it ought to do ; and consequently I pass over the discussion of the tariff question for the reason, that so far as I myself am concerned, I am not able to say where we shall land, what the conditions will be, what will confront us, what course it will be proper for us to take. Our course will necessarily be 'governed by the conditions that will hereafter arise, and in my opinion we had better wait until these conditions develop themselves. So much for the tariff.

Now, I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that I should have risen at all on this occasion but for the desire I have to make a few remarks upon a certain phase of sentiment in this country, and upon a certain disposition manifested in certain quarters in this country which I think is regrettable, in reference to our international relations. It is quite common in Canada to criticise with some severity, often with a good deal of severity, the action of Great Britain with regard to this Dominion. Now, we should remember, Sir, that so far as Great Britain is concerned, so far as we ourselves are concerned, it is a matter of primary importance to maintain good relations with that great branch of the Anglo Saxon family to the south of us. That is especially the case with Great Britain. Great Britain has world wide interests ; interests that do not centre primarily and chiefly in Canada ; but interests that spread over the whole broad face of the world. Great Britain has interests in Canada, and I believe that Great Britain, so far as her policy towards Canada is concerned, has discharged her duty to this country faithfully and in such a way as to merit our thanks and approval. But we may, we naturally do magnify the importance of our own issues and of our own interests. We may, and we do sometimes think that England should sacrifice everything for the maintenance of same comparatively unimportant claim or interest that we think a great deal of. In the past, England has stood by our interests faithfully, in my opinion. In the past I do not think we have just reasons for complaint against the policy that Great Britain has pursued with regard to these colonies or this Dominion. For this reason, I think that England is often unjustly accused of failing to stand by our interests with that persistence and with that disregard of consequences that some expect she ought to do. It is a matter of primary importance to Great Britain, I repeat, to maintain good re-

lations witli the United States. We perhaps do not realize how important that is. We do not realize how completely that is a factor governing the position of England and the conduct of England with regard to questions arising between these two countries. Consequently, Sir, we should deal with these questions in a temperate spirit. We should deal with these questions with a full knowledge of the facts. We should deal with these questions, giving to England the benefit, when we are forming our judgment, of their environment, of the necessities that confront her, and of the difficulties that surround her. If we were to do this, perhaps in some cases our judgment would be modified to a very great extent.

In the course of the admirable speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition this afternoon, I noticed his remarks with reference to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. As the position which my hon. friend took upon that matter has not been replied to, his remarks might go to the country with his assertions uncontradicted. The abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was an unpopular move in the estimation of the Canadian public, no doubt. That treaty had existed for a good many years. It imposed restrictions and conditions upon the United States with regard to various matters that the public men of all parties in that country chafed under. It was a source of difficulty and created conditions of a threatening character. By the abrogation of that treaty Great Britain gave to the United States a free hand in the construction of the Isthmian canal; and, following the conditions which the abrogation of the treaty created, the United States have proceeded to take the initial steps towards the construction of the canal by the Panama route. Now, the question is, had Canada any reason or any right to say to the United States, you shall not construct that canal ? Were we ready to construct it ? Was Great Britain ready to construct it? Was the United States, in offering to construct that canal, trenching upon our rights or upon any scheme we cherished for opening communication between the waters of the Carribean sea, and the Pacific ocean ? We have interests, of course, on both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and if we had been prepared to connect the two oceans by an Isthmian canal, there certainly would have been more reason for our finding fault with the arrangement made for the abrogation of the treaty. The United States possesses fifteen times our population; it possesses more than twenty-five times our wealth; it lias vast interests on each coast; and its public men deemed the construction of that canal an essential requisite to the prosperity of the country and its progress in the future. It was a cherished scheme with the American people to open up what would practically be a communication between their territorial 3i

possessions on the Pacific and the Atlantic.

I was in Washington the day Lord Paunce-fote signed that treaty. I called upon his lordship, and he expressed unbounded satisfaction upon having, as one of the last official acts of his life, signed a treaty that was to set at rest a vexed question between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon family, and was to render improbable what would otherwise have been probable-friction, bad feeling, or a collision between the two countries.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Did he say anything about the Alaskan boundary at the same time ?

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

The two questions were dealt with on their own merits. The Alaskan boundary has been dealt with since ; I will reach that question soon. But I will say, in answer to my hon. friend that Lord Pauncefote was not in a position to dictate to the United States government what their course of conduct should be ; and if they were unwilling to couple the Alaskan boundary with the settlement of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty question, I do not suppose Lord Pauncefote had it in his power to compel them to meet his wishes, and I doubt whether it would have been a politic thing for him to terminate the negotiations because he could not have his way entirely. The two questions stood distinct from each other, and were treated on distinct bases.

With regard to the Alaskan boundary question, as the premier told us this afternoon, the Joint High Commission at Washington in 1899 were unable to agree upon that question. It was the difficulty which broke up the sittings of the commission. The British commissioners refused to continue negotiations unless that question was set at rest. The American commissioners desired to let it stand in abeyance and go on with the other questions which had been referred to the commission. The British commissioners refused to do that, and the commission broke up. We had tentative agreements on many points which would have given this country a fairly desirable treaty. It was a fortunate thing, however, that we did not go on, that the British commissioners terminated the sittings of the commission and went home, because the condition of sentiment in the United States to-day is so much more favourable as regards the question of concessions to Canadian interests, that we shall now, in all human probability, get a very much more favourable treaty than we could have got at that time. Consequently, the deferring of the negotiations before the Joint High Commission will prove to be entirely in the interests of Canada.

With regard to this boundary commission, I was asked by my hon. friend the lender of the opposition, if Lord Pauncefote had

insisted upon coupling the Alaskan boundary question with the question of the Olayton-Bulwer treaty. I answer no, he had the good sense not to insist upon it, because, if he had, we would have had complications and difficulties of a character the consequences of which no man could foresee. The question had dragged along for many years. At the time the Joint High Commission was in session, the American commissioners refused to entertain any proposition made by the British commissioners with regard to it. They stood on their contention and refused arbitration. It is true, they did offer to refer the question to jurists, an equal number from each country, but with the reservation that any territory then occupied by the United States-and Skagway was one of the points-should not be included in the reference. Well, the reference has at last been made with that condition eliminated, and we have a reference to a tribunal composed of three jurists from each country. It was supposed in Canada that jurists independent of politics would be cliosen by the United States, and a good deal of feeling has existed in consequence of the alleged failure of the President to make such a selection.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Were they not to be three impartial jurists of repute ?

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

Yes. The President of the United States, it is understood, desired or requested justices of the United States Supreme Court to act on this commission, and they refused to act upon it. That is well known.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

I will explain to my hon. friend privately how. It is a matter of current report; in Washington. That is a statement which I heard from one of the justices of the United States Supreme Court himself. The President was left without the ability to select the members of the commission he desired to select, for the reason that they refused to act. He might, it is true, have selected other jurists. They might have declined to act for the reasons assigned by the judges of the United States Supreme Court, namely, that if they took the position, their functions would not be strictly judicial. But this treaty had not, up to the time when it was ascertained that the justices of the Supreme Court would not act upon the commission, been ratified by the United States Senate. That ratification, it is understood, was secured through the co-operation of Senators Lodge and Turner, and but for their co-operation and assistance it never would have been ratified. Now, the President of the United States was confronted with this situation. A great deal of trouble has been experienced with the United States Senate. Treaty after treaty has been hung up by that body.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink

March 13, 1903